Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Individual Liability and Criminalizing Cybersecurity Response
Cyberattacks, data breaches, ransomware — these are now the stuff of corporate and boardroom discussion. Hardly a day goes by without a reminder of the centrality of cybersecurity to business and government. In one of many recent headlines, the country's largest oil and gas pipeline system, Colonial Pipeline, was the target of a cyberattack in 2021 and a demand for a $4.4 million ransom, which was paid with the support of federal authorities. War in the Ukraine has heightened already intense concern about the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to cyberattacks.
To date, cybersecurity has generally been viewed as an organizational responsibility, and data breaches similarly have been treated as organizational weaknesses or failures. States have enacted laws that require organizations to report incidents of data theft "expeditiously" to state authorities and individuals adversely affected. In addition, public companies are required to disclose information about data breaches when such information is material to investors.
Against this backdrop of organizational responsibility, the Department of Justice has brought a noteworthy criminal case against an individual for his personal response to a corporate data breach. In United States v. Sullivan, Case No. 3:20-cr-00337-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the defendant, a former employee of Uber Technologies (Uber), has been charged with wire fraud and other offenses that arise from his handling of a ransomware attack against Uber in 2016. While Uber settled potential civil charges with state attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Uber was not charged criminally.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.